Posts: 102
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2010
I feel the need to get this off my chest, as it's becoming quite a popular topic recently and it's also something that I feel very strongly about. The issue I want to address is whether or not editing official, or other people's in general, maps is illegal or immoral. Keep in mind that they are only my opinions. You are free (and I encourage you) to tell me I am wrong and/ or why.
Copyright is in definition the right to copy. It means that as a creator, you are saying "I reserve (am taking for myself) the right to decide what can and cannot be done with my information. This could be a map, a picture, a sound, a piece of music, or an audiovisual work. It could be any idea, dream, or thought in the world. The actual rules and terms that the author decides upon are the license. This could be anything from Microsoft's EULAs to Kopimi.
Imitation is the highest possible example of flattery. I expect AssaultCube itself is the project of those who saw Cube and thought to themselves "You know, I could do this, that, and the other thing with that idea!" And may I say, what has been done thus far is far beyond the scope of Sauerbraten and I am extremely happy that it's community has matured and grown. It really is an incredible project, no matter what version you chose to use. The split in our community over 1.0.4 and 1.1 shows that there are many people who love this game and what has been done with it on one and/ or the other version.
I'm not really sure why I felt the need to say this. I'm not going to close with a "Stop all this nonsense and do ________" or a /ragequit. This is just the way that I feel. I am open to any comments, flaming, complaining, and offtopic tangents that may or may not follow.
Frag you later,
Quinn Wood (aka DEKiMA)
P.S. I am not a map editor. Just so that you know.
Posts: 98
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2010
You didn't take my advice, :(
Quote:DEKIMA, may I suggest that you start wearing boxing gloves when you feel the urge to go on line!
Posts: 591
Threads: 19
Joined: Jun 2010
Be free to edit, repair, modify but if you want to send it out, you must handle licencing, this rule is legal in all human activities (if you type an article and wanna present it, you must use references etc.)
Posts: 102
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2010
I feel that too many people are so eager to synchronize with the seemingly popular opinion and don't actually think. Or read the OP...
For example, handling licensing requires that a license is given. © 2010 Quinn Wood is not a license. That's a big point this was meant to address.
Posts: 591
Threads: 19
Joined: Jun 2010
Copyright is part of a licence, you have discribed in licence what you can and cannot do with copyright.
Posts: 102
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2010
16 Oct 10, 09:56AM
(This post was last modified: 16 Oct 10, 10:04AM by DEKiMA.)
(16 Oct 10, 09:43AM)Alien Wrote: Copyright is part of a licence, you have discribed in licence what you can and cannot do with copyright.
Well thank you Alien. You have officially contributed nothing to this thread but proof that you didn't read it.
Copyright is literally, the right to copy, though in legal terms " the right to control copying" is more accurate. Copyright are exclusive statutory rights to exercise control over copying and other exploitation of the works for a specific period of time. The copyright owner is given two sets of rights: an exclusive, positive right to copy and exploit the copyrighted work, or license others to do so, and a negative right to prevent anyone else from doing so without consent, with the possibility of legal remedies if they do.
Wikipedia: Copyright
So if you could please point out where in the words © 2010 Quinn Wood states the terms of this license you speak of, maybe I will be inclined to believe that the many editors who have contributed to this definition are incorrect.
License does not describe what you can and cannot do with copyright. Intellectual property law does. The license describes what others are allowed to do with your idea or information. You do not transfer copyright to others in a license, as otherwise you would allow them to control the copying of the said idea or information.
Posts: 591
Threads: 19
Joined: Jun 2010
if you create something you have automaticly copyright and you don't need to add it © sign, your map is used by AC(distributor) so you need make a deal = licence, you cannot sell copyright with licence before your work is done and you cannot lost original copyright
It is clear for me, i don't understand what you solve.
Posts: 102
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2010
Lol... it obviosly isn't clear to you at all :) Whatever...
Posts: 485
Threads: 88
Joined: Jun 2010
16 Oct 10, 12:40PM
(This post was last modified: 16 Oct 10, 12:41PM by Hellspell.)
To answer your question of whether or not making edits of other peoples maps is immoral, it's my opinion that as long as you give the original maker credit when you use someone's idea for a map then it's alright.
Posts: 102
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2010
(16 Oct 10, 12:40PM)Quorthon Wrote: To answer your question of whether or not making edits of other peoples maps is immoral, it's my opinion that as long as you give the original maker credit when you use someone's idea for a map then it's alright.
That's what I would tend to see as the correct way to approach it. Yet I still see servers getting banned and users as well.
Posts: 98
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2010
17 Oct 10, 12:29AM
(This post was last modified: 17 Oct 10, 12:29AM by jiba.)
There are many variables to how to use a copyright. Creative commons has allowed people to publish their work and at the same time communicate to what extent how they would like to share their work.
Within the context of this game the Developers have some means of power to protect their work and that of others, for example removing servers that compromise their rules. Personally I prefer others to not edit my work unless they have contacted me and asked to do so.
Rather than ramble on about my own opinions take a look at these 2 site, they contain some relevant reading.
Clearing up copyright confusion
Creative Commons
Posts: 102
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2010
My point is, if they want to ban people and their servers for infringing copyright, they should damn well make sure that's the wish of the authors. Right now this isn't being done; any and all mapediting (pertaining to already made maps) is being banned.
Posts: 354
Threads: 19
Joined: Jun 2010
"To answer your question of whether or not making edits of other peoples maps is immoral, it's my opinion that as long as you give the original maker credit when you use someone's idea for a map then it's alright. "
And this is just the wrong way to approach this, a weak justification to screw around with other people's stuff, and so typical. As long as you don't know if it's okay to edit, just assume the author does not want you to. It's called respect.
I have allowed certain edited versions of my maps, when I liked them - but usually those mappers asked me before publishing.
All authors of the official maps have been free to add the license they deemed approriate, by the way.
The correct way to do this is to ask first, then edit - no license or copyright information should always be understood as "don't touch".
But, in reality, all this doesn't work anyways, because noone gives a damn shit on licenses and copyrght anyways these days. I know from experience. I cannot count the times how often people edited my works and failed to understand, read or lest apply the CC license they came with. It used to make me furious at first, but now I stopped to care, because it's not good for me to be mad all day.
People have even replaced parts of my work with stolen/horrible stuff and left the "license.txt" untouched (probably never noticed them) and redistributed it, making me look like an idiot....
The whole CC stuff and similar licenses are just a nice sounding idea that doesn't work out. The only licensing that works are © and PD.
Posts: 3
Threads: 1
Joined: Oct 2010
For fear of oversimplification, perhaps we should look at this problem in the light of AC being 'Open Source' and that we all (at least have the opportunity to) contribute, edit, mod, etc.
In this context, any map made for AC becomes a part of AC, open for us all to (at least have the opportunity to) contribute, edit, mod, etc.
I dunno. I know I've largely ignored the OP, and I apologise for my lack of legal knowledge, but this could be a nice way to look at it.
—PS, Despite what I've said, DEKiMA, I do share your horror at plagiarism, but i do love collaboration, especially when it turns out to be as brilliant as this game is.
Posts: 21
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2010
17 Oct 10, 08:47AM
(This post was last modified: 17 Oct 10, 08:50AM by DrMental.)
OP, I think your right in the way that
DEKiMA Wrote:Copyright is literally, the right to copy, though in legal terms "the right to control copying" is more accurate. Copyright are exclusive statutory rights to exercise control over copying and other exploitation of the works for a specific period of time. The copyright owner is given two sets of rights: an exclusive, positive right to copy and exploit the copyrighted work, or license others to do so, and a negative right to prevent anyone else from doing so without consent, with the possibility of legal remedies if they do. but i think that
makkE Wrote:The correct way to do this is to ask first, then edit - no license or copyright information should always be understood as "don't touch". would be the best way to do it.
EDIT:
I also believe that even if a licence or whatever isnt included that it shouldn't be edited. Unless they said that in a licence.
Posts: 102
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2010
17 Oct 10, 08:59AM
(This post was last modified: 17 Oct 10, 09:11AM by DEKiMA.)
An open source community should be encouraged to participate in any way they can. Not all of us are geniuses like makkE, Brahma, a_slow_old_man and onwards (if I left you out, haha, don't be offended.) Some of us can only participate by working off what has already been done.
Quote:Copyright © <''year''> <''copyright holders''>
This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
arising from the use of this software.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
freely, subject to the following restrictions:
1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software
in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
appreciated but is not required.
2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
misrepresented as being the original software.
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source
distribution.
So I conclude:
I'm essentially a pirate. In more ways than one. Piracy is about culture, culture is about humanity and I'm a human being. I am a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants. One who develops future intellectual pursuits by understanding the research and works created by notable thinkers of the past. Two really great quotes IMO, and ones that I feel can pertain to almost every intellectual property dilemma in the world.
Posts: 3
Threads: 1
Joined: Oct 2010
(17 Oct 10, 08:59AM)DEKiMA Wrote: I'm essentially a pirate. In more ways than one. Piracy is about culture, culture is about humanity and I'm a human being. I am a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants. One who develops future intellectual pursuits by understanding the research and works created by notable thinkers of the past. Two really great quotes IMO, and ones that I feel can pertain to almost every intellectual property dilemma in the world.
haha, brilliantly said.
Posts: 485
Threads: 88
Joined: Jun 2010
17 Oct 10, 10:40AM
(This post was last modified: 17 Oct 10, 02:00PM by Hellspell.)
When I posted my earlier comment those were my views of what someone editing one of my maps would be and because I couldn't find a reason other mapmakers would think differently I was assuming everyone would share those views. But let's say that my assumptions are incorrect and there are people who have a different view.
What if you try to contact the maker of a map and you can't? Think if he/she had stopped playing ac, had no clan website to pm them and so on. Or in the case that it was a really nooby map and the maker's name wasn't in the mapmessage. I supppose that would mean you shouldn't make an edit? It would be so much easier for it to be ok to make edits as long as you gave them credit.
Surely there is something that comes with the game that says what you can and can't do with maps? If not, then maybe that should be included in the next release, whenever that may be. It would definitely clear up the confusion that there is.
Posts: 102
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2010
(17 Oct 10, 10:40AM)Quorthon Wrote: Surely there is something that comes with the game that says what you can and can't do with maps? There isn't yet, except for ac_toxic. Ownership is claimed however no other information is given as to what is and isn't allowed.
(17 Oct 10, 10:40AM)Quorthon Wrote: If not, then maybe that should be included in the next release, whenever that may be. It would definitely clear up the confusion that there is. That would be the best thing in my opinion as well. Even if it isn't as nice and simple as zlib, at least it would clear things up.
Posts: 354
Threads: 19
Joined: Jun 2010
17 Oct 10, 01:05PM
(This post was last modified: 17 Oct 10, 01:09PM by makkE.)
Dekima, that is the zlib license. It refers to the source code ONLY. Don't just post it here uncommented to make others believe they are free to do whatever they want with everything in the package.
AC is opensource not as in "I can change everything" but in that the source code is freely available and useable. The media is a whole diffrent story.
The media has a mix of all sorts of licenses, from restrictive to almost PD. You'd know if you had taken the time to read /docs/package_copyrights.txt
Besides, those quotes you use mean something ENTIRELY diffrent than you think they mean. There is a _profound_ diffrence in an artist copying (for practice reasons), studying and being influenced by all others before him, and someone who paints a mustache on the monalisa, to put it bluntly.
"Some of us can only participate by working off what has already been done."
All of my models are CC - here you have a fine oppertunity to do this. But this doesn't mean every map should be free to change AND be distributed. It's perfectly fine for people to edit an exsisting map when they are learning the editor - whether it's fine to distribute them is the author's choice and noone else's.
Posts: 102
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2010
17 Oct 10, 01:20PM
(This post was last modified: 17 Oct 10, 01:39PM by DEKiMA.)
Quote:This file holds the copyright information for all packages/artwork included in AssaultCube (UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED) OR it will tell you the place to find the licenses for works within AssaultCube.
Please respect the authors reserved rights and permissions.
------------MAPS----------------------
ac_complex - Copyright © 2004-2006 by makkE ([email protected]).
ac_mines - Copyright © 2004-2006 by makkE ([email protected]).
ac_depot - Copyright © 2004-2006 by MitaMAN.
ac_desert - Copyright © 2004-2006 by makkE ([email protected]) and Arghvark.
ac_desert2 - By Nieb
ac_snow - By daMfr0
ac_power - By wotwot
ac_elevation - By A&D_Shadow
ac_toxic - © Copyright 2007-2008 by RandumIdiot (http://www.ri-ac.co.nr). Detailed copyright info for
this map: packages/maps/readme_ac_toxic.txt
ac_urban - By Archangel, with help from RandumIdiot.
Mr.Floppy - Map: ac_keller, plus textures.
DogDancing - Map: ac_shine, ac_scaffold, plus textures.
R4zor - Map: ac_sunset
KC - Map: ac_arctic
The included maps remain intellectual property of their respective creators. Mapmessages upon load may
provide further detail.
Ok, I am really sorry to be a dick. But that is not a license. Nor does it mean that the people modifying maps should be banned. Funny how I'm not even doing the "crime" I'm trying to defend and I can already smell myself getting banned from these forums.
So please tell me why you, and the others who have come to the decision, have decided that "reserved rights and permissions" includes no derivative works, period? This is my biggest problem and it is the only one being ignored. I am glad there has been constructive discussion on the other points, but seriously. Pretty soon this thread is just going to get closed and myself banned.
Oh and P.S. I did read the package_copyrights. Otherwise I wouldn't have quoted them probably.
EDIT: And may I ask, where exactly is readme_ac_toxic.txt? It seems to not only not exist in the 1.1.0.3 installation, but it isn't in SVN back to the original 0.9.
Posts: 1,823
Threads: 20
Joined: Jun 2010
17 Oct 10, 01:35PM
(This post was last modified: 17 Oct 10, 01:40PM by Gibstick.)
Quote:The included maps remain intellectual property of their respective creators.
Forget copyright, there's nothing wrong with an artist banning you from his/her house for drawing moustaches on his/her work.
Posts: 354
Threads: 19
Joined: Jun 2010
I agree with you that banning people for modifying maps goes a bit far. You won't be banned here either as long as you stay civil, I can assure you that.
If you are unhappy with the wording, maybe you can suggest a better wording that makes clear that no derivative works are wanted. Though to the best of my knowledge, in common copyright handling, no derivative works are allowed until this is explicitly granted. Plus I have never heard that a license is required besides a copyright notice.
Nowadays, even no notice at all acts as a plain ©.
I am tired to argue about this any further. I wonder why people periodically try to challenge this issue - a right to mess with other people's stuff... maybe I'm just getting old, but to me that's not very respectful, and a bit sophomoric. That's just my personal opinion here.
I've argued over this enough, so I'll just stop.
Posts: 102
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2010
17 Oct 10, 01:41PM
(This post was last modified: 17 Oct 10, 01:49PM by DEKiMA.)
ac_complex - Copyright © 2004-2006 by makkE ( [email protected]).
ac_mines - Copyright © 2004-2006 by makkE ( [email protected]).
ac_depot - Copyright © 2004-2006 by MitaMAN.
ac_desert - Copyright © 2004-2006 by makkE ( [email protected]) and Arghvark.
First of all, that isn't an answer to my question. I asked why makkE and others who have not created these maps are speaking for them. The above seem to be the only maps he has copyright and rightfully so, control, over.
If you want to do anything about people editing the official maps, please have the permission by the copyright holders of the other maps before enforcing their rights... Sigh. That's all I want.
Do you have to do it? No. Will I leave if you don't? Of course not. Will I flame you and troll if you ignore me? Hell no. It's just something I wish you would agree with me on. If you don't, you don't. No bad blood between us or anything. It just doesn't seem fair to people who honestly might not even be doing anything wrong in the other authors' eyes. That said, I'm tired too. So I'll head to bed and hope we can someday get to a resolution instead of frayed ends.
(17 Oct 10, 01:35PM)Gibstick Wrote: Quote:The included maps remain intellectual property of their respective creators.
Forget copyright, there's nothing wrong with an artist banning you from his/her house for drawing moustaches on his/her work.
I'm not... and not all map editors make crappy versions of ac_desert with air conditioners as invisible camping spots... The people who do can go to heck. But the people who honestly want to improve or work off of things should be allowed to, especially if the one enforcing copyright doesn't hold the copyright him/herself(s).
Posts: 354
Threads: 19
Joined: Jun 2010
17 Oct 10, 01:52PM
(This post was last modified: 17 Oct 10, 02:02PM by makkE.)
Look man, we have asked every author what license/copyright he wanted for his map. All of them wanted restrictive licenses. Nowadays it doesn't matter if it says "by blah" or "© 2010 by blah" - both means exactly the same. Even "" means the same.
Again I think this mindset that you should be able to mess with everything someone else crated just the way you please, and furthermore that you have an almost godgiven right to do so is just disrespectful and greedy in my book. This has nothing to do with any license crap or copyright notices, just my 2 cents. Maybe we should simply stop to mention the word "opensource" anywhere at all, because it seems to attract this way of thinking. I won't answer you anymore from now on.
Just one more:
"But the people who honestly want to improve or work off of things should be allowed to, especially if the one enforcing copyright doesn't hold the copyright him/herself(s). "
If you plan to make a new version of a map, feel free to contact the author and ask him if it's okay - if he likes your plans or concept, he might give you the permisson., or he tells you to stop If you can't contact him, you're out of luck, simple as that.
Posts: 102
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2010
18 Oct 10, 02:07AM
(This post was last modified: 18 Oct 10, 02:10AM by DEKiMA.)
(17 Oct 10, 01:52PM)makkE Wrote: Look man, we have asked every author what license/copyright he wanted for his map. All of them wanted restrictive licenses. I'm sure you have.
(17 Oct 10, 01:52PM)makkE Wrote: I won't answer you anymore from now on. Fine by me. This conversation has accomplished nothing anyway. And for the record, the reason why people "challenge this issue from time to time" is because this is the closest to a resolution that anyone's seen. If you want to make rules, you can make rules. But I hope to see an actual license on the next release of AC, because contrary to your opinion
(17 Oct 10, 01:52PM)makkE Wrote: Nowadays it doesn't matter if it says "by blah" or "© 2010 by blah" - both means exactly the same. Even "" means the same. is incorrect. Talk to your lawyer about that and you'll find I'm correct. I have talked to mine.
/feel free to close now.
EDIT: even if you chose to ignore the requirement of a license, you should probably update 2004-2006 and 2007-2008, as well as include readme_ac_toxic or remove the reference to it.
|
